Michael Green is Executive Director of the Social Progress Imperative, an initiative aimed at redefining how the world measures success. An economist by training, he is co-author (with Matthew Bishop) of Philanthrocapitalism: How Giving Can Save the World and of The Road from Ruin: A New Capitalism for a Big Society. Previously, Michael served as a senior official in the U.K. Government’s Department for International Development, where he managed British aid programs to Russia and Ukraine and headed the communications department. He taught Economics at Warsaw University in Poland in the early 1990s.

Why was the Social Progress Index (SPI) developed and who was involved in its development?

Michael
Green: The original idea of developing an index to
capture social progress goes back to the 2008 financial
crisis. Together with my friend Matthew Bishop from
the Economist I wrote a book about the financial
crisis, The Road From Ruin. One thing that
we identified was that the financial crisis was very
much a crisis of measurement. Then during the 2009
World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council, Matthew
raised the need for developing an index capturing
the level of social progress of a country.

A
group of us started working on this idea in 2010 and
then approached Professor Michael Porter from Harvard
Business School to help us on the development of a
Social Competitiveness Index who brought in Scott
Stern from MIT. Beside the initial support of Avina
Foundation, Skoll Foundation and Compartamos Banco
from Mexico, we also got support from Cisco and Rockefeller
Foundation. Deloitte joined us as key partner in2013. So it was a big collaborative effort. The firstspi was then launched in a beta version in April 2013.

Which dimensions does the SPI cover?

Michael
Green: First, the spi is based only on social and environmental indicators. Most of the other composite indicators (e.g. the Human Development Index, the OECD Better Life Index, the Gross National Happiness Index) mix up economic and social measurements, while the SPImeasures social progress without considering economic dimensions. The SPI is
therefore a measure which is complementary to GDP,
allowing comparisons between social progress and economic
development as measured by gdp. Secondly, the SPI
is focused on outcomes. For instance, it measures
the health conditions achieved in a country and not
expenditure on the health sector – so the SPI is a
descriptive tool, not a normative one. Thirdly, the
index is >applicable to all countries, independently
from their level of economic development.

The SPI is a useful tool for supporting both public debate and policy-making. This composite indicator covers three dimensions broken down into 12 components and aggregates 52 distinct indicators into a single score; a country ranking is also available. Owing to its structure, it can be easily disaggregated in its different components. Therefore, it can be used in order to identify countries’ weaknesses and strengths.

The SPI measures social progress, i.e. how successful
a society is at delivering social progress to its
citizens, not how happy it is. The two aspects may
sometimes overlap, but they refer to different concepts.
The notion of social progress the SPI is based on
three ‘dimensions’:

(1)
satisfying citizens’ basic needs (nutrition and basic
medical care, water and sanitation, shelter, personal
safety), (2) providing every citizen with the building
blocks of a better life (access to basic knowledge,
information and communications, health and ecosystem
sustainability), (3) giving citizens the opportunity
to pursue their hopes, dreams and ambitions free from
obstacles and barriers (personal rights, freedom and
choice, tolerance and inclusion, access to advanced
education).

Which are the main strengths of the SPI in comparison with other measures of social progress?

Michael
Green: One strength is that the SPI is built only on social and environmental indicators. This allows for comparisons with gdp trends: given a certain GDP level, countries’ performances on social progress may even substantially differ. In other words, economic and social progress may diverge.
Furthermore, the SPI methodology is transparent, based on data from reliable sources such as the UN agencies.

And what are the main weaknesses of the index?

Michael
Green: Our biggest challenges are data quality and
availability. The best data available are not always
as methodologically robust as we would like for issues
such as shelter and mental health, for example. On
Ecosystem Sustainability, data on greenhouse gas production
would ideally be complemented by those on GHG consumption.
I would also love to find data on the quality of life
of people with disabilities, which is such an important
issue but where there is presently no data.

Using
the best data we can find we have pretty good global
coverage – 133 countries were covered by the 2015
Index, corresponding to the 94% of the world population
– but our goal is to have a Social Progress score
for every country in the world.

Has every component of the index the same weight?

Michael
Green: All components of the index are equally weighted. Within each component, however, not all indicators are equally weighted. The different weights have been defined according to statistical techniques such as Principal Component Analysis. Further methodological information is available on our website.

What are the key findings from the 2015 SPI and what are the main differences to 2014?

Michael Green: Our key finding is that on average
there is a positive relationship between economic
growth and social progress. Wealthier countries such
as Norway generally show better social outcomes than
lower income countries. However, given a certain GDP
level, the variability among countries can nevertheless
be considerable. Hence, economic performance alone
does not fully explain social progress. At any level
of GDP per capita, there are opportunities for higher
social progress and risks of lower social progress.

The
2015 SPI results were very similar to 2014. This is
a good confirmation of the model’s robustness. This
might be explained by the fact that the trend of the
variables captured by the SPI (e.g. the adult literacy
rate) depends on policies’ long-term effects. Nevertheless,
the limited data availability (only 2014 and 2015
results are currently available) doesn’t allow for
identifying any trend yet.

By
looking at the social progress drivers, we didn’t
find a significant correlation with income inequality,
measured by the Gini coefficient. We did, however,
find a strong negative correlation between social
progress and poverty rates (both absolute and relative).

How could decision-makers make use of the findings from the SPI?

Michael
Green: The SPI is a useful policy tool, which can
contribute to defining development strategies aimed
at fostering social progress as well as economic growth.

An
example of its application is provided by the measurement
and monitoring of the national development plan of
the Government of Paraguay – “Paraguay 2030” – which
was recently launched. In this context, the SPI is
used to measure the country’s social well-being and
the impact of social investment.

How
can you assure that your index is taken up by policy
makers?

Michael
Green: The SPI is a composite indicator, providing an aggregate score. It can therefore be easily understood by both policy makers and the general public. It has the potential to become a reference in the political debate on social progress, as GDP is for economic growth.

Could the SPI be applied at regional level, for example in Europe?

Michael
Green: There are currently applications of the SPI in some regions of the Americas and of Europe.
Several initiatives have already been launched to apply the SPI at regional level in Latin America.

The first sub-national Social Progress Index was launched in August 2014 for 772 municipalities across the Amazon region of Brazil. The methodology has been adapted to the specific context: while the index has kept its structure of twelve components, the indicators have been slightly modified according to data availability and their relevance for those municipalities. For example, an indicator on educational attainment, for which data are not available at national level, and on waste collection and forestry, which are relevant in the Amazon region, have been included. The SPI framework has enough flexibility to be tailored to fit local contexts and realities.

In September 2015, the application of the SPI to 13 selected cities in Columbia will start, to provide useful and up-to-date information for urban policy makers.

In the USA, Michigan has been the first state to adopt the SPI. The application of the SPI to some cities and other states across the US is planned in 2015.

At the end of 2014, the development of a SPI prototype for the NUTS 2 EU regions started in cooperation with the Directorate General Regional and Urban Policy of the european commission. As in the case of the Amazon region, the 12 components structure has been kept, but the set of indicators is currently being adapted to the specific context.

When do you expect the first results for the European regions?

Michael
Green: In October 2015, we will launch a trial version for the EU area and a consultation process involving the most relevant stakeholders (governments, businesses and civil society). The feedback will be vital for further SPI development in Europe.

The EU
Treaties and the EU
Charter of Fundamental Rights cover several important
social principles. A horizontal social clause introduced
by the Lisbon Treaty requires the EU to promote a
high level of employment, to guarantee adequate social
protection, to fight against social exclusion and
to ensure a high level of education and the protection
of human health.

In 2010 the EU adopted the Europe 2020 strategy calling for a smart, inclusive and sustainable growth. Each of these three areas are accompanied by a number of specific targets and flagship initiatives.

Inclusive growth (the aspect most relevant to social progress) is measured against the employment rate and the poverty or social exclusion headline target. The related targets to be reached by 2020 are increasing the overall employment rate to at least 75% and reducing by at least 20 million the number of people at the risk of poverty and social exclusion compared to 2008. However, according to the latest available figures in 2013 121 million in EU27 were at risk of poverty and social exclusion, i.e. almost every fourth person. The 2020 target of 96.6 million in EU27 seems therefore still far from being reached.

In light of the EU’s growing unemployment (especially for young people) as well as increasing inequality and poverty in the EU Member States, in recent years the european commission has integrated some social principles in its economic governance system.

In
2013, the European Council agreed to include a non-bindingScoreboard
of key employment and social indicators in the Joint Employment Report, annually prepared by the Commission and adopted by the Council of the European Union. The scoreboard contributes to strengthen the social dimension of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) by enabling a better and earlier identification of major employment and social problems. It includes five indicators: the unemployment rate, youth unemployment, real change in gross disposable household income, at-risk-of-poverty rate and inequalities (S80/S20 ratio).

Since 2014, the
scoreboard is fully rooted in the EU economic
governance framework. Also in 2015 it has been included in the Annual Growth Survey during the
European Semester, the EU yearly cycle of economic policy coordination.

A number of efforts have been made to explore how indicators on social progress can be integrated into concrete policy recommendations. Among the approaches to measure social progress in Europe, the Bertelsmann Stiftung has developed the Social
Inclusion Monitor Europe (SIM). The SIM combines the Social Justice Index and the Reform Barometer in order to better measure social justice and formulate concrete recommendations for policy reforms in individual Member States and the EU28 as a whole.

Based
on a cross-national survey, the Social
Justice Index includes 27 quantitative and 8 qualitative indicators, associated with the six dimensions of social justice (poverty prevention, equitable education, labour market access, social cohesion and non-discrimination, health, and intergenerational justice).

The
Report “Social
Justice in the EU – A Cross-national Comparison”
summarises the main findings for all the 28 EU Member States, showing considerable heterogeneity in the ability to create a truly inclusive society. According to the latest figures, the wealthy northern EU countries (Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands) have the highest ranks in social justice, while Bulgaria, Romania and Greece show the lowest scores.

The Reform Barometer,
developed by the Bertelsmann Stiftung and the London School of Economics, is an expert survey on government responses to increase social inclusion across the 28 EU Member States by balancing the macro-economic bias of the European Semester. The online survey instrument includes 60 questions, covering the six dimensions of social inclusion and is directly disseminated to more than 400 policy experts across the EU. Their answers provide information on the extent to which policies introduced in the past year achieve particular objectives and give examples on their country context.

All
mentioned EU social indicator initiatives help promoting
the social dimension of the Europe
2020 strategy calling for smart, inclusive and
sustainable growth. Inclusive growth (relevant for
social progress) is measured against the employment
rate and the poverty or social exclusion headline
indicator.

In brief

09.07.2015

Sustainable Governance Indicators 2015 published

The fourth edition of the Bertelsmann Stiftung Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) has been released. Covering 41 EU and OECD countries, the SGI aim at contributing to a factual and data-driven debate on good governance and sustainable policy outcomes. These 140 indicators combine quantitative data from official statistic sources with experts’ qualitative assessments. They measure sustainable governance with respect to three pillars: Policy Performance, Democracy and Governance. Results for 2015 show Scandinavian countries, Switzerland and Germany being the top performers, while Southern and Eastern European countries ranking among the weaker performers.

The Co-Chairs of the Open Working Group on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have issued their long awaited „zero draft“, containing a proposal for 17 goals and 169 targets to be attained by 2030. This new set of goals addresses issues such as global poverty, inequalities and climate change. It should replace the original Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which will expire at the end of the year. The formal SDGs adoption will take place at the UN Summit from 25 to 27 September 2015 in New York. The next step will be to develop a global indicator framework supporting the goals that is planned to be developed by March 2016.

China implements Gross Ecosystem Product in Yantian District of Shenzen

The Yantian District of the Shenzhen City, in the Chinese Guangdong Province, has begun to implement a dual accounting, operating and promoting mechanism involving both GDP and Urban Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP). By putting an economic value on all ecosystem products and services nature provides for human well-being, the GEP captures the benefits provided to urban residents by improving their living environment. The aim is to calculate the two indexes yearly and achieve GDP growth without compromising GEP. Thanks to a change in energy and sustainable mobility policies, 150 million Yuan of ecological value were created and the GEP has increased between 2013 and 2014. The GEP development is in line with the new Eco-Civilization initiative, one of the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China’s top priorities.

The Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) has published the third edition of the World Happiness Report. Among the 10 countries showing the highest average life evaluations, there are only small or medium-sized western industrial countries, with Switzerland, Iceland and Denmark at the top. Changes in life evaluation between 2005-2007 and 2012-2014 might be related to a combination of differing exposure to the economic crisis, the quality of governance, trust and social support. By far the largest drops could be observed in Greece and Egypt, followed by Italy. However, there is evidence that a high quality social capital can keep or even improve subjective well-being also in case of natural disasters or economic shocks. The 2015 report analyses a number of issues, among which the neuroscience of happiness and children’s happiness.

On
March 20th 2015, the International Day of Happiness,
Eurostat published a collection of subjective well-being
indicators. This was the first time they have been
gathered at European level. In 2013, EU residents
rated their overall life satisfaction at 7.1 on average,
on a scale of 0 to 10. Scandinavians were the most
satisfied, while Southern and Eastern Europe residents
generally expressed lower levels of life satisfaction.
Having a very good health condition turns out to be
the most influential factor for life satisfaction,
followed by financial situation, labour market situation
and social relations.

The Sustainable Cities Index, developed by ARCADIS and the Centre for Economics and Business Research, ranks 50 of the world’s leading cities according to social, environmental and economic demands. Seven European cities are among the top ten, with Frankfurt, London and Copenhagen at the top. No North American city made it to the top ten, mainly due to rather weak performances with respect to environmental and social sub-indices. The index aims to support decision-makers to identify sustainable development opportunities.